FSTDT Forums
Rubbish => Preaching and Worship => Topic started by: Jacob Harrison on June 01, 2018, 05:21:34 pm
-
I discovered this article on the guardian about a scientific study done on the remains of King Richard III of England that were discovered in 2012. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/02/king-richard-iii-dna-cousins-queen-ancestry
The most shocking thing in the article is this
“Five anonymous living donors, all members of the extended family of the present Duke of Beaufort, who claim descent from both the Plantagenets and Tudors through the children of John of Gaunt, gave DNA samples which should have matched Y chromosomes extracted from Richard’s bones. But none did.
Since Richard’s identity was proved by his mitochondrial DNA, handed down in an unbroken chain through the female line from his sister to two living relatives, the conclusion is stark: there is a break in the claimed line of Beaufort descent, what the scientists described as “a false paternity event”, which may also affect the ancestry of their distant cousins, the Windsors.”
If the false paternity event affected Henry VII Tudor, that means that neither the Windsors or the Jacobite successors have legitimacy to the throne of England as they are not dirrect descendants of John of Gaunt.
So I will suspend my Jacobite activism until I figure this out.
-
I wouldn't say there's nothing I could care about less, but there's not many things.
-
I wouldn't say there's nothing I could care about less, but there's not many things.
It is very significant because it shows whether the Windsor’s, the royal family of the UK and the Commonwealth Realms have any claim of legitimacy to their throne.
-
I don't find that very significant at all.
-
I don't find that very significant at all.
You don’t find a sex scandal from the 1300s that affects the legitimacy of the entire royal family since to be significant?
-
No, why should I?
-
I would say that this could potentially be of some remote significance, except that Parliament explicitly settled the question of the succession with the Act of Settlement, rendering all else moot.
-
No, why should I?
Because the House of Windsor is a very significant royal family today, so it is very significant that the entire Windsor family may not even be of royal blood.
-
I would say that this could potentially be of some remote significance, except that Parliament explicitly settled the question of the succession with the Act of Settlement, rendering all else moot.
But the strict rules of royal succession is that the successor to the throne, must be the legitimate offspring of the monarch. The DNA test might mean that the House of Windsor might not even be of royal blood.
-
I would say that this could potentially be of some remote significance, except that Parliament explicitly settled the question of the succession with the Act of Settlement, rendering all else moot.
But the strict rules of royal succession is that the successor to the throne, must be the legitimate offspring of the monarch. The DNA test might mean that the House of Windsor might not even be of royal blood.
...except that Parliament can, if it wishes, change those rules however it likes. In 1700 (or so) it declared that the rightful heirs would be the Protestant descendants of Sophia of Hanover. That settled the question. If you can demonstrate that the current monarch is not a descendant of Sophia of Hanover, please present your evidence.
No, why should I?
Because the House of Windsor is a very significant royal family today, so it is very significant that the entire Windsor family may not even be of royal blood.
Not really. They're constitutional monarchs, with very limited real power and exercise it only at the gravest need. If you want significant royal families, I suggest looking to places like Saudi Arabia.
-
I will suspend my Jacobite activism until I figure this out.
At least that's something.
-
I would say that this could potentially be of some remote significance, except that Parliament explicitly settled the question of the succession with the Act of Settlement, rendering all else moot.
But the strict rules of royal succession is that the successor to the throne, must be the legitimate offspring of the monarch. The DNA test might mean that the House of Windsor might not even be of royal blood.
...except that Parliament can, if it wishes, change those rules however it likes. In 1700 (or so) it declared that the rightful heirs would be the Protestant descendants of Sophia of Hanover. That settled the question. If you can demonstrate that the current monarch is not a descendant of Sophia of Hanover, please present your evidence.
No, why should I?
Because the House of Windsor is a very significant royal family today, so it is very significant that the entire Windsor family may not even be of royal blood.
Not really. They're constitutional monarchs, with very limited real power and exercise it only at the gravest need. If you want significant royal families, I suggest looking to places like Saudi Arabia.
But parliament has not yet changed the rules of succession so that illegitimate child of an adulterous spouse can inherit the throne of a someone who is not their real biological parent. Succession is still based on legitimate descent from other monarchs including pre Glorious Revolution monarchs
-
I don't care which ass sits on which throne.
-
I don't care which ass sits on which throne.
As long as it is in tight denim
-
I don't care which ass sits on which throne.
As long as it is in tight denim
So that Jacob, the crazy sex maniac, can bust a nut to that ass, be said ass male or female.